Wall Construction Co Ltd. v. JCIT

DCIT-CC-7(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MAHARISHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. ARIHANT PREMISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground Nos

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit-Cc-7(3), Vs Arihant Premises Private Limited Room No-655, Aayakar Bhavan, 412, Floor-4, Vardhaman Chamber Maharishi Karve Road, Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Mumbai-400 020 Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan : Aaaca7260K Appellant Respondent

…allowable as deduction only in the year in which the revenue pertaining to the said interest is offered to tax. The AO placed reliance in this regard on the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of M/s. Wall Street Construction Ltd. (102 TTJ 505). The AO also stated that the decisions relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts. Accordingly, the AO disallowed appellant's claim of deduction of interest amounting to Rs.740.84 lakhs. 10.2 It is an undisputed fact that the appellant has followed percentage completion method for the purpose of recognizing revenue from its proje…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.) (SUCCESSOR OF M/S BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.2385/Mum/2022 filed by the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As Lodha Tax, Developers Pvt. Ltd.)(Successor Of Central Circle-7(3), M/S Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Room No,655, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) 412, 4Th Floor, 17 G, Vardhman M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Market, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort Mumbai 400001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl1490J

…pers Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 from the above findings and further it is also not shown that there is any change in the facts and circumstance of the case. The order of the learned CIT (A) has considered the decision of the said bench in Wall Street Construction Ltd. 102 TTJ 505. The co-ordinate bench has also looked into the circular no.7 2003 dated 5th September, 2003, examining the impact of insertion of proviso to section 36(1)(iii) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from 1st April, 2004. Therefore, in earlier years the co- ordinate Benches have categorically held that interest expenditure is allowable…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED(SUCCESSOR TO LODHA IMPRESSION REAL ESTATE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

…ve decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). 9. Further, the decision of the special bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wall Street Construction Ltd reported in 102 TTJ 505 is distinguishable also in facts as having been rendered in a case where the assessee was offering to tax income from the project on completion of the project by following project completion method whereas in the present case percentage completion method is being followed. Identical ground raised by the 5 ITA. No. 2154 /Mum/2022 Assessment Year:…

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD .(SUCCESSOR TO M/S SAHAJANAD HI-TECH CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, for A.Y. 2015-16, the appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To M/S Sahajanad Acit Cc-7(3) Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Room No. 655, Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 412,4Th Floor, 17-G, Vs. M.K.Road, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai- 400 020 Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Cirlce, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaecp1936F Acit Cc-7(3) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Room No. 655, (Successor To Bellissimo Aayakar Bhavan, Developers Thane Private Limited) M.K.Road, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vs. Mumbai- 400 020 Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D ‘Ita No. 1864/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Dcit, (Successor To Bellissimo Central Circle 7(3) Developers Thane Private Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Limited) 412, Floor-4, 17G Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, M. K. Road, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Mumbai-400 021 Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D

…aiming this deduction, and the learned AO is, accordingly, directed to allow the same. Grounds No.1 and 2 are, accordingly, ALLOWED” 011. The learned CIT (A) has also considered the decision of Special Bench in M/s Wall Street Construction Limitedreported in 102 TTJ 505. 012. On the argument of the revenue that the decision of the Honourable Bombay High Court was rendered prior to insertion of proviso to Section 36 (1) (iii) of the act by the ITA Nos. 18931864 & 1885/Mum/2022 finance act, 2003 with effect from 1/4/2004 and therefore that decision does not apply to the facts of the case. We have looked at circula…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, for A.Y. 2015-16, the appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To M/S Sahajanad Acit Cc-7(3) Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Room No. 655, Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 412,4Th Floor, 17-G, Vs. M.K.Road, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai- 400 020 Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Cirlce, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaecp1936F Acit Cc-7(3) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Room No. 655, (Successor To Bellissimo Aayakar Bhavan, Developers Thane Private Limited) M.K.Road, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vs. Mumbai- 400 020 Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D ‘Ita No. 1864/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Dcit, (Successor To Bellissimo Central Circle 7(3) Developers Thane Private Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Limited) 412, Floor-4, 17G Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, M. K. Road, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Mumbai-400 021 Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D

…aiming this deduction, and the learned AO is, accordingly, directed to allow the same. Grounds No.1 and 2 are, accordingly, ALLOWED” 011. The learned CIT (A) has also considered the decision of Special Bench in M/s Wall Street Construction Limitedreported in 102 TTJ 505. 012. On the argument of the revenue that the decision of the Honourable Bombay High Court was rendered prior to insertion of proviso to Section 36 (1) (iii) of the act by the ITA Nos. 18931864 & 1885/Mum/2022 finance act, 2003 with effect from 1/4/2004 and therefore that decision does not apply to the facts of the case. We have looked at circula…

MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD(SUCCESSOR TO BELLISSIMO DEVELOPERS THANE PRIVATE LIMITED) ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3) (FORMERLY INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3)(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, for A.Y. 2015-16, the appeal of the learned

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Successor To M/S Sahajanad Acit Cc-7(3) Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Room No. 655, Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 412,4Th Floor, 17-G, Vs. M.K.Road, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai- 400 020 Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Cirlce, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaecp1936F Acit Cc-7(3) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Room No. 655, (Successor To Bellissimo Aayakar Bhavan, Developers Thane Private Limited) M.K.Road, 412, Floor-4, 17G Vs. Mumbai- 400 020 Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D ‘Ita No. 1864/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Macrotech Developers Ltd. Dcit, (Successor To Bellissimo Central Circle 7(3) Developers Thane Private Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Limited) 412, Floor-4, 17G Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Vardhman Chamber, Cawasji, M. K. Road, Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Mumbai-400 021 Fort, Mumabi-400 001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aadco0409D

…aiming this deduction, and the learned AO is, accordingly, directed to allow the same. Grounds No.1 and 2 are, accordingly, ALLOWED” 011. The learned CIT (A) has also considered the decision of Special Bench in M/s Wall Street Construction Limitedreported in 102 TTJ 505. 012. On the argument of the revenue that the decision of the Honourable Bombay High Court was rendered prior to insertion of proviso to Section 36 (1) (iii) of the act by the ITA Nos. 18931864 & 1885/Mum/2022 finance act, 2003 with effect from 1/4/2004 and therefore that decision does not apply to the facts of the case. We have looked at circula…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO M/S LODHA IMPRESSION REAL ESTATE PVT LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…he case of CIT vs Lokhandwala Construction Ind. Ltd reported in 260 ITR 579 (Bom) in support of its contentions. On the contrary, the ld. AO relied on the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s Wall Street Construction Ltd reported in 102 TTJ 505 (Mum) (SB) and disallowed the interest of Rs 5,00,78,994/- by capitalizing it to work in progress. 4.1. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of this tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1310/Mum/2021 for Asst Year 2014-15 dated 08.04.2022. Before us, the ld. DR vehemently relied…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD(SUCCESSOR TO M/S LODHA IMPRESSION REAL ESTATE PVT LTD)., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…he case of CIT vs Lokhandwala Construction Ind. Ltd reported in 260 ITR 579 (Bom) in support of its contentions. On the contrary, the ld. AO relied on the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s Wall Street Construction Ltd reported in 102 TTJ 505 (Mum) (SB) and disallowed the interest of Rs 5,00,78,994/- by capitalizing it to work in progress. 4.1. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of this tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1310/Mum/2021 for Asst Year 2014-15 dated 08.04.2022. Before us, the ld. DR vehemently relied…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MMR SOCIAL HOUSING PVT LTD (EARLIER KNOW AS M/S LODHA BUILDCON PVT LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…he case of CIT vs Lokhandwala Construction Ind. Ltd reported in 260 ITR 579 (Bom) in support of its contentions. On the contrary, the ld. AO relied on the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s Wall Street Construction Ltd reported in 102 TTJ 505 (Mum) (SB) and disallowed the interest of Rs 5,00,78,994/- by capitalizing it to work in progress. 4.1. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of this tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1310/Mum/2021 for Asst Year 2014-15 dated 08.04.2022. Before us, the ld. DR vehemently relied…

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

…n. He also rejected the reliance on the decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Lokhandwala construction industries Ltd 260 ITR 579. The learned AO supported his view by the decision of special bench in Wall Street constructions limited 102 TTJ 505. Accordingly he disallowed the interest cost of ₹ 2,241,160,000/–. ITA no. 1539 & 1594/Mum/2019 Lodha Developers Ltd; A.Y. 15–16 ii. The AO further found that assessee has incurred cost of 3,59,77,997/– on account of ERP expenses. AO noted that the same has enduring potential and can be treated as a capital expenditure. Assessee submitted copies…

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUCCESSOR TO PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am

…n. He also rejected the reliance on the decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Lokhandwala construction industries Ltd 260 ITR 579. The learned AO supported his view by the decision of special bench in Wall Street constructions limited 102 TTJ 505. Accordingly he disallowed the interest cost of ₹ 2,241,160,000/–. ITA no. 1539 & 1594/Mum/2019 Lodha Developers Ltd; A.Y. 15–16 ii. The AO further found that assessee has incurred cost of 3,59,77,997/– on account of ERP expenses. AO noted that the same has enduring potential and can be treated as a capital expenditure. Assessee submitted copies…

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blemacrotech Developers Limited V. Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) V. Macrotech Developers Limited Room No. 655, 6Th Floor {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent)

…. Lokandwala Construction Industries Ltd., [260 ITR 579]. 2. Not convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Wall Street Construction Limited [102 TTJ 505] wherein it has been held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only in the year in which corresponding income offered to tax, Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v…

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S COWTOWN LAND DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

…v.LokandwalaConstruction Industries Ltd., [260 ITR 579]. 4. Not convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Wall Street Construction Limited [102 TTJ 505] wherein it has been held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only in the year in which corresponding income offered to tax, Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

…rofit and loss account, there is a corresponding deduction of the interest claimed as deduction. On these facts, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim for deduction following the Special Bench decision in the case of Wall Construction Co Ltd Vs JCIT (102 TTJ 505), and, while doing so, for example for the assessment year 2013-14 (the corresponding observations for the other years are materially similar), observed as follows: “6. The assessee's explanation has been perused; however, not found satisfactory. The assessee is developing one project only. The accounting of the construction activity is governed…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

…rofit and loss account, there is a corresponding deduction of the interest claimed as deduction. On these facts, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim for deduction following the Special Bench decision in the case of Wall Construction Co Ltd Vs JCIT (102 TTJ 505), and, while doing so, for example for the assessment year 2013-14 (the corresponding observations for the other years are materially similar), observed as follows: “6. The assessee's explanation has been perused; however, not found satisfactory. The assessee is developing one project only. The accounting of the construction activity is governed…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SANATHANAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

…rofit and loss account, there is a corresponding deduction of the interest claimed as deduction. On these facts, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim for deduction following the Special Bench decision in the case of Wall Construction Co Ltd Vs JCIT (102 TTJ 505), and, while doing so, for example for the assessment year 2013-14 (the corresponding observations for the other years are materially similar), observed as follows: “6. The assessee's explanation has been perused; however, not found satisfactory. The assessee is developing one project only. The accounting of the construction activity is governed…

MMR SOCIAL HOUSING P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CENTRAL RANGE-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

…d as deduction in the year in which the corresponding income of the project is credited in the books of accounts and offered to tax. The Assessing Officer also refer to the decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s Wall Street Construction Ltd [102 TTJ 505] in support of its conclusion. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer, inter-alia, disallowed the interest cost of Rs. 4,35,36,783 and added to the work in progress of the assessee. MMR Social Housing Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1310/Mum./2021 6. In appeal before the CIT(A), assessee, inter-alia, submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee b…

ASSTT. CIT (OSD) - CC -7 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S Shri Rifaur Rahamn & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – Cc-7(3) Vs. Macrotech Developers Room No. 655, 6Th Ltd (Successor To Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bellissimo Crown Mk Road, Mumbai – Buildmart Pvt Ltd) 400020. (Earlier Known As Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent Macrotech Developers Vs. Dcit – Cc-7(3) Ltd (Successor To Room No. 655, 6Th Bellissimo Crown Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Buildmart Pvt Ltd) Mk Road, Mumbai – (Earlier Known As 400020. Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent

…v.LokandwalaConstruction Industries Ltd., [260 ITR 579]. 2. Not convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Wall Street Construction Limited [102 TTJ 505] wherein it has been held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only in the year in which corresponding income offered to tax, Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v…

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S NATIONAL STANDARD INDIA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.3048/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-Cc-7(3) M/S. National Standard Pvt.Ltd. Room No.655, 6Th Floor बिाम/ 412, Vardhman Chamber Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Fort, Mumbai-400 011. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9808-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 13/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / 05/04/2021 : Date Of Pronouncement

…ted all other expenses to work-in-progress except interest. These expenses were also periodic cost and would be allowable as deduction in toto on assessee’s logic. Relying upon the decision of Special Bench in the case of M/s Wall Street Construction Limited (102 TTJ 505), which held that interest cost was to be allowed as deduction only in the year in which the corresponding income was offered to tax, the interest expenditure thus claimed was disallowed and added back to work-in-progress as reflected by the assessee in the books of accounts. 3.4 The second issue is with respect to set-off of brought forward loss…

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

…Lokandwala Construction Industries Ltd., [260 ITR 579]. 4. Not convinced with the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Wall Street Construction Limited [102 TTJ 505] wherein it has been held that the interest cost shall be debited to work in 4 ITA No. 2147 & 2348/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2014-15) Lodha Developers Limited {since merged M/s. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} progress and allowed to be claimed as deduction only in the year in which corresponding income offered to tax, Assessing Officer denied the claim of the…